holding that the trial court properly denied a motion to intervene when the motion would have caused the other members of the class to be prejudiced by the postponement of a settlement
How later courts described this case
- holding that the trial court properly denied a motion to intervene when the motion would have caused the other members of the class to be prejudiced by the postponement of a settlement
- refusing to address the argument raised by appellants on | n appeal that the chancellor erred in failing to join them as necessary parties under Rule 19, this court stated that it was “clear from the record that [it] was raised at the last minute and was never ruled on by the chancellor. It is well settled that the failure to obtain a ruling from the trial court is a procedural bar to our consideration of the issue on appeal.”
- explaining that the Arkansas Constitution preserves sovereign immunity absent waiver
- if “[a] party seeking intervention will be left with the right to pursue an independent remedy against the parties in the primary proceeding, regardless of the outcome of the pending case, then the party has no interest that needs protecting by intervention of right”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. I agree with the result reached in this case. However, on the issues of intervention, I would affirm solely for the reason that the law firms did not have a recognized interest in the subject matter of the primary litigation and settlement. That, of course, is one of the criteria for intervention as a matter of right. Matson, Inc. v. Lamb & Assocs. Packaging, Inc., 328 Ark. 705 , 947 S.W.2d 324 (1997). Accordingly, I would not reach the issue of timeliness of the intervention and consider that discussion in the opinion to be obiter dictum.
Smith, J„ joins.